Paradoxes

How does one define "sanity" or "healthy" while living in an "insane" and "unhealthy" world.

I would like to be a person who is completely free of capitalism; how do I achieve that living in a capitalistic society? I could perhaps go live somewhere and grow my own food and build my own house using tools I made for myself and sew my own clothes which I've woven myself if I can perhaps find a community in which I can barter with and for those things which each the other needs. Will they let me in for free or do I have to pay admittance thereby requiring capital? How do I get there? Drive? More money for vehicle and gas. Walk? How do I feed myself along the way? More money. Do they own the property outright? Taxes? More money. My point being, it may be doable but how do I get from here to there without, in some small part, participating in the capitalistic society in which I don't want to participate? The same paradoxes apply when discussing sex.

What is healthy sex? What is a healthy sexual self-image? Who decides? Based on what criteria and standards which are in turn defined by who? And of those definitions, how do I know which are truly healthy and which are derived from the definer's, possibly twisted possibly not, view of the world? How do I know my own definitions are healthy? Is BDSM healthy? Those who participate believe it is. As for me, it doesn't do much for me. Does that mean I'm not healthy? Does it mean they're not? There may be great minds out there who have that answer; I'm not one of them. And of the "great minds," are they healthy enough in their own sexuality to decide and define? Is it healthy to constantly look to get laid to the exclusion of any other activity? I've known men and women who go through their lives (or part of their lives) doing exactly that. I have other interests as well as sex. Who's "right"? Me or them? Both? Who decides?

My point being, how does one take information which we've internalized and examine that information without projecting our internalized information on the internalized information we're examining?

As to defining the opposite of sex-positive...why define an opposition to an already conflicted area of discussion? Instead of "either/or" why not discuss things as "both/and" and see where that leads us.

I'm curious as to why you would ask if I'm for "limiting rights" rather asking in what ways I can see expanding or increasing our rights and/or participation in the debate. My post dealt mostly with, what we refer to around here as "the law of unintended consequences" or "be careful what you wish for."

For example, speaking of government , women's rights activists wanted a famous woman to appear on U.S. currency; remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar? Well, we got what we wanted. Not quite how we wanted it, but we got it. Women's rights activists wanted the police to more seriously address issues of domestic violence and to protect women from men who abuse them. Now, in many places, when the police arrive at a domestic violence call, both parties are taken in. Women's rights activists wanted women to live safe lives away from their abuser. We now have women's shelters. The abuser stays in the home; the woman hides for her life leaving behind her home, job, friends and family. No-fault divorce so women could leave bad relationships. Say buh-bye to alimony and many forms of financial support for women who, many times, have no other form of financial support. Child custody was historically given to men as their "rights" of property. Women's rights activists fought against this and won the right of women to gain custody of their children. Single-parent households in which the single parent is a woman are traditionally one of the poorest demographics reported in the U.S. Again, unintended consequences. (note: broad brush applied for brevity)

So my point is, let's have all the ducks in a row before be start legislating or limiting or even defining what is or is not "right."

For starters, we live in a world in which we still have to define healthy sex as 'consensual'. Why is that? Why is 'consensual' not just a given, inherent in the definition itself? Perhaps it implies we need to step back and look at "relationships of power;" not just within the context of the sex act, but within our broader view. Why do I see healthy sex frequently defined as between consenting 'adults'? Is sex only healthy if one is an 'adult'? At what age, chronologically or otherwise, do we switch from child to adult? All of us identically? Girls the same as boys?

Oh, hell, for that matter is sex healthy? Some people view sex in any form at any time as unhealthy and/or sinful. (I think Paul's writing is the best/worst example of that.) Do they get a seat at the table? Or do we label them sick and repressed while they label us sick and perverted? Who's right? Who decides? The medical community from whence there once was a missive in which girls were warned their uterus would atrophy if they pursued a higher education? The psychiatric community from whence came the definition of homosexuality as a perversion and who once defined a slave who was unhappy being a slave as one who had a mental disorder (the name of which escapes me at this moment)? The church? Yeah, that's worked well. /sarcasm to the church part.

So let us all talk and debate. That's a big positive as far as I'm concerned. Sex is a topic of conversation that can be discussed in the light of day rather than hidden away while each person wonders if they're weird or stunted or repressed or...or...whatever. Let's have an old-fashioned, 60s type consciousness raising (yikes! I used 60s as old-fashioned! *sigh* Guess what that makes me?) Let's start talking again about what's what for us. You know, you've read them or heard them. "Wow, women can climax multiple times?!" "Wow, women can climax?!" "Is it only a climax when it's vaginal?" "Where is my vagina?" "Vagina, hell! Where's my clitoris?" "My what does what when I climax?!" "Oral?! Ewwwww." "Oral, mmmmm" "Is the 'g' spot real or did some guy make it up?"

So let's talk...again. Let's define, together with each other, for ourselves and for each other, what sexual health is, what healthy sex is. Then, when we've defined the myriad healthy sexual experiences and sexually healthy bodies, let's talk about what's "right" and what's "wrong". Some strippers love the attention and feel powerful using their bodies in that way. For some it's a soul-destroying way to make money. For others it's somewhere in between. Some women enjoy making money for providing sex; they feel powerful, beautiful and they can pay the rent or go on a cruise. Some are coerced or know no other way or feel unworthy of anything but. And others are somewhere in between. It's my job to define what "is" for me and, sometimes, it's my "job" to share what "is" for me with others to see if that's what "is" for them. And sometimes it's my job to listen or help those who are hurting or validate and celebrate those who aren't. And sometimes it's my job to just shut-up. Which I will do right after I note; as you may have noticed, I don't view this as a binary, on/off, black/white, yes/no, good/bad, issue - there's just too much "in-between" in there.

Abortion before it was legal.

and pictures of what can happen when abortion is illegal.

The site is graphic! Proceed with caution if you go there to read the stories, which are also very graphic, and to view the site.

Life and Liberty for Women

Is it the intent of anti-abortion extremists to ban all abortions?

Of course.

And does their intent involve another method of banning abortions other than overturning Roe vs. Wade?

Yes.

One strategy is to ban abortion procedures one procedure at a time which would effectively make abortion illegal.

In a perfect world.

sex would not have a stigma attached to it.

Were that the case, then yes, by all means let's discuss what causes sexual excitement in an individual. Let's discover the different forms of excitement and categorize those which are sexual and those which are induced by violence. The commonalities between and the differences of. What does sex look like when it's not commodified, stigmatized and brutalized?

In my previous post, I started to post about the notion that "fear is excitement without the breath." Two distinct emotions with similar physiological responses. Few, I think, confuse one with the other. Yet we frequently confuse emotions induced by a brutal act with emotions induced by sex.

In a perfect world, perhaps we could discover the different forms of "sexual" excitement. In the meantime...sex is taboo unless selling something or for procreation, except for "studly" men and never for women and lets not even talk about same sex or racially "mixed." I'm not sure I, or anyone actually, can define "healthy" sex or "healthy" sexual arousal.

Until the time we have valid information we gets to work with whats we got. And what we got is a society in which women who are raped are frequently stigmatized, demonized and vilified. And what about men who are raped? We haven't even begun to deal with that; perhaps because that might start to show that rape is a violent crime, used by men (most rapists are male) as a means to humiliate, control, punish, destroy, dishonor and/or demoralize a person or persons. Think of the use of rape to dishonor families and demoralize the enemy during wartime.

I wish I had an answer. I wish we lived in a "perfect" world. I wish sex and sexuality were honored or sacred or healthy or good.

I wish.

Understanding Sexism

Understanding sexism, racism and other isms in the progressive/liberal communities.

The full book title for those of you who have not already read it is "Sacred Pleasure: sex, myth, and the politics of the body" by Riane Eisler; who, some of you know, also wrote "The Chalice and the Blade."

It has been my experience that many feminists cringe when confronted with anything related to spirituality and/or religion; with good cause given what has been done against/to women in the name of god and/or religion. I believe and I have believed since beginning my feminist research and career that we avoid the spiritual realm to our own detriment. It has been such an effective tool against us, we must understand its workings in order to defeat its efficacy. I've spent much of my feminist career examining religions and comparing mythologies of the sacred feminine and how many of those myths define what it is to be human and to define what it is to be female; usually different and conflicting pictures. As a matter of fact, I realized recently, that my feminist consciousness came about due to the fact that I questioned many of the tenets within the religion of my childhood; the catholic church.

Since this may be a book which would be overlooked by feminists due to its spiritual theme, I felt I should post about it here. Quite frankly, I hope that I'm wrong and that my experiences within the feminist community are now quaint anachronisms of the feminist movement past. :D

The theme throughout both "Chalice" and "Sacred Pleasure" is that of dominator versus partnership societies. "Sacred Pleasure" begins where "Chalice" left off and shows the inter-connectedness of dominator ideals as they impact the "nuclear" family, economic realities, the political sphere, the role of religion and myth-making, the role of media to promote approved mythology, and the ever present need and erotization of "sacred" violence or threat of violence in order to maintain dominator (patriarchal) systems of oppression over those defined as less than, weaker, less worthy, less god-like, i.e., "feminine." Her theories say that sexism against women is the "linchpin" upon which all isms are modeled. Sexism is the "template" for all forms of discrimination and hatred toward "out groups."

Her theories about dominator versus partnership help to explain sexism, racism, homophobia, and other anti-"other" behaviors and comments many here experience within our own progressive/liberal movement; from men and women.

I highly recommend you investigate both "Chalice" and "Sacred Pleasure" with an eye toward defining that which continues to "defeat" us and separate us as we continue to re-define the world in which we live and to see those dominator ideals which we and "ours" continue to propagate within our work toward peace, partnership and equality rather than violence, hatred and power-over.

We may have come a long way, but we have a long way still to go.